Case Study #3

 

  • This case study solidified the intersections of homelessness, mental health concerns, and reliance on governmental officials. It also appealed to the interest that I have in having some kind of involvement with psychiatry- whether that be through a residency or fellowship after medical school. This client was a very interesting one. They were introduced to me through Cassie’s programming attempting to provide housing for HIV+ persons. This patient had been in a state of mind bordering between mania and psychosis for approximately a month. The patient was effectively homeless and living in a tent. My first interaction with this client was when I was asked by my coworkers to assist with monitoring the client so they did not disappear into the street. Another agency was filling out a mental hygiene appeal- known as a 302 in Pennsylvania. This allows the state to involuntarily commit individuals to mental health institutions. In West Virginia, the legal system is extremely suspicious (and in my opinion, unethical). Many of the magistrate judges here are elected and not appointed, meaning they have no legal background or experience with judging. The client was in this state of borderline psychosis where they were obsessing over alternate dimensions, talking about themselves as an omniscient god, divulging horrific traumas through poetry stanzas, jumping out of cars into the highway, and consuming massive amounts of food. While all of this was communicated about the patient to create a foundation of imminent psychosis, magistrate judges turned down the mental hygiene because “there was no immediate threat of suicide or harm to others.” Since the magistrate judges have no training in the legal system or exposure to mental health, their uneducated status prevented them from knowing that the definition of psychosis includes the threat of suicide or harm against others. The denied the 302, to my knowledge, twice. 

  • The client was staying in a hotel so that the social services could monitor their whereabouts as they were attempting to provide housing for this client. They needed to meet with their landlord in a few days- so they needed to keep their eyes firmly trained on this client. The second time I was introduced to this client was at the end of the month when all of my coworkers and the collaborative social service (that had submitted the 302) needed to finish paying bills and finish case notes. This meant that I was the one sent to the hotel to prepare the client, take them to get food, and bring them to the Covenant House to be monitored while they were awaiting their meeting with their landlord. While I am not cleared to be driving patients around, especially one of that volatile disposition, I couldn’t avoid the way that the cookie had crumbled around me. While I got an official tap on the hands, it showed just the depth of my involvement and how reliable I was. I definitely know that it was appreciated. The patient was less manic that day, but still was claiming to have owned an interdimensional cat that could teleport to check on the people they cared about. The patient was also claiming to have known every person that they saw, repeating over and over that it was their mother’s boyfriend. I had to use many redirect techniques to prevent them from following everybody they saw. Ultimately, the last that I heard of the patient was that the landlord did intend to let the client be housed on their property. The downside, unfortunately, is that the property wouldn’t be ready for some time. This effectively left the client on the street until the house was available for move-in. Although, with the multiple denials of the 302, we were unsure if this client would receive the intensive treatment that they needed to hold a mental state that would even be conducive to living in a residential property.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Week Five (7/5/22-7/8/22)

Week Six (7/11)-(7/15)

Week Seven (7/18/22-7/22/22)